Gimme a break!

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Some people do not understand Polygamy and for the I am truly sorry

Some people do understand Polygamy and those are the people that are listening!!!!!

Polygamy is a culture as well as a law or not a law

[_Pahoran]

Some people do not understand Polygamy and for the I am truly sorry

Some people do understand Polygamy and those are the people that are listening!!!!!

Polygamy is a culture as well as a law or not a law

How is that actually relevant to what is being discussed? What argument are you attempting to engage here?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Mercury]

The LDS church currently practices polygamy, by sealing multiple wives to the same man in the temple. Oaks and Nielson are sealed to their second wives.

What do critics of the church find compelling in this argument? I see this point raised continually as a way to bellitle the lives of these men and the Church itself, but I don't see it.

The Church also authorizes a widow to be sealed to another husband. Is this polygamy?

Yes, it is polygamy.

Really?

"In every state the law allows a man or a woman to be married to only one person of the opposite sex at a time. The crime of having more than one current spouse is called polygamy." From http://www.answers.com/topic/plural-marriage

Widowed persons remarrying is not polygamy. You are indulging in polemical special pleading when you claim that it is.

Regards,
Pahoran

screwing a 14 year old glrl constitutes child molestation. Are you conceding that joe was a child molester or will you just say that it was different back then?

Your point that the practice of celestial polygamy does not constitute polygamy is based on the nature of a law created by a government on earth. The definition of marriage in Mormonism is an "eternal" principal not subject to earthly laws.

You are using the legal definition of marriage in order to avoid the question. Mormon marriage goes beyond this life therefore it is a polygamous system of marriage.

I always find it fascinating how weak and small the supposed "most true religion on earth" bends at government control. Course, its not that surprising now that i realise its all a farse.

Once again, pa-whore-in is showing his nature, that of someone who makes up the story and reasoning as he goes along.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Screwing a fourteen year old girl was different then because women were stupid and less rights then cattle they were property RIGHT????

Women now have been elevated to slighty more then CATTLE


Women have now become smarter OH MY WORD WE ARE SMART NOW....WE have have higher brain functions then mere CATTLE right????

[_Pahoran]

The LDS church currently practices polygamy, by sealing multiple wives to the same man in the temple. Oaks and Nielson are sealed to their second wives.

What do critics of the church find compelling in this argument? I see this point raised continually as a way to bellitle the lives of these men and the Church itself, but I don't see it.

The Church also authorizes a widow to be sealed to another husband. Is this polygamy?

Yes, it is polygamy.

Really?

"In every state the law allows a man or a woman to be married to only one person of the opposite sex at a time. The crime of having more than one current spouse is called polygamy." From http://www.answers.com/topic/plural-marriage

Widowed persons remarrying is not polygamy. You are indulging in polemical special pleading when you claim that it is.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Snip vile outburst]

Your point that the practice of celestial polygamy does not constitute polygamy is based on the nature of a law created by a government on earth. The definition of marriage in Mormonism is an "eternal" principal not subject to earthly laws.

You are using the legal definition of marriage in order to avoid the question. Mormon marriage goes beyond this life therefore it is a polygamous system of marriage.

You would do well not to presume to tell me what definitions obtain "in Mormonism."

"Polygamy" is a word. It is used by English speakers to communicate a given meaning. And the meaning is "having multiple concurrent spouses." This does not apply if all but one of the spouses is dead. If you claim that it does apply because the parties hope to be reunited after death, then you are giving the word a meaning that ordinary users do not ascribe to it.

This is not entirely unprecedented, but it is more than a little bit presumptuous for you to presume to invent a specialised form of the word for us. That particular function is recognised as being the right of the group to whom the term is supposed to apply.

Now, back to your vile outburst. You vomited:

screwing a 14 year old glrl constitutes child molestation. Are you conceding that joe was a child molester or will you just say that it was different back then?

Since there is no evidence that "joe"[sic] ever "screwed a 14 year old glrl," there is nothing to "concede."

It is, of course, true that it was considered acceptable for girls to marry younger then, if that's what you mean to imply. "Studies" based upon "median ages" are quite intentionally misleading; if the "median age" of marriage at a given time and place was twenty-four, this only serves to conceal the fact that if one woman married at thirty-six, then someone else had to marry at twelve to make that "median" work.

I always find it fascinating how weak and small the supposed "most true religion on earth" bends at government control. Course, its not that surprising now that i realise its all a farse.

For myself, I find it fascinating how the vaunted "land of the free" so easily jettisoned its principles in order to suppress an unpopular minority religious practice. Perhaps it is America that is the "farse"[sic]; but your nasty gloating is unsurprising, considering how vile is your hatred for The Church of Jesus Christ.

Once again, pa-whore-in is showing his nature, that of someone who makes up the story and reasoning as he goes along.

Actually that is what you are doing, Vague-ass.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Screwing a fourteen year old girl was different then because women were stupid and less rights then cattle they were property RIGHT????

Women now have been elevated to slighty more then CATTLE


Women have now become smarter OH MY WORD WE ARE SMART NOW....WE have have higher brain functions then mere CATTLE right????

I think Parohan has higher brain functions then??????......Well I'm not really sure......


I am so confused..>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>????????????????as Always

[_Pahoran]

Screwing a fourteen year old girl was different then because women were stupid and less rights then cattle they were property RIGHT????

Women now have been elevated to slighty more then CATTLE


Women have now become smarter OH MY WORD WE ARE SMART NOW....WE have have higher brain functions then mere CATTLE right????

I think Parohan has higher brain functions then??????......Well I'm not really sure......


I am so confused..>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>????????????????as Always

Do you actually want to discuss something?

I'm happy to oblige, but I'm having difficulty parsing your increasingly incoherent posts.

I can't speak for the apostate (i.e. ex-Mormon) groups, but I can tell you that women in The Church of Jesus Christ were never regarded as "cattle."

Is that helpful for you?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

BREAK......BREAK.....BREAK......

Cattle....Women....CAttle...Women....Cattle.....Women.....

Yikes he is right wow not the same


LolololOLOlOlO;ladlsafjancnxnvkHogWGJKVZKBIGS

[_Mercury]

The LDS church currently practices polygamy, by sealing multiple wives to the same man in the temple. Oaks and Nielson are sealed to their second wives.

What do critics of the church find compelling in this argument? I see this point raised continually as a way to bellitle the lives of these men and the Church itself, but I don't see it.

The Church also authorizes a widow to be sealed to another husband. Is this polygamy?

Yes, it is polygamy.

Really?

"In every state the law allows a man or a woman to be married to only one person of the opposite sex at a time. The crime of having more than one current spouse is called polygamy." From http://www.answers.com/topic/plural-marriage

Widowed persons remarrying is not polygamy. You are indulging in polemical special pleading when you claim that it is.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Snip vile outburst]

Your point that the practice of celestial polygamy does not constitute polygamy is based on the nature of a law created by a government on earth. The definition of marriage in Mormonism is an "eternal" principal not subject to earthly laws.

You are using the legal definition of marriage in order to avoid the question. Mormon marriage goes beyond this life therefore it is a polygamous system of marriage.

You would do well not to presume to tell me what definitions obtain "in Mormonism."

"Polygamy" is a word. It is used by English speakers to communicate a given meaning. And the meaning is "having multiple concurrent spouses." This does not apply if all but one of the spouses is dead. If you claim that it does apply because the parties hope to be reunited after death, then you are giving the word a meaning that ordinary users do not ascribe to it.

This is not entirely unprecedented, but it is more than a little bit presumptuous for you to presume to invent a specialised form of the word for us. That particular function is recognised as being the right of the group to whom the term is supposed to apply.

Now, back to your vile outburst. You vomited:

screwing a 14 year old glrl constitutes child molestation. Are you conceding that joe was a child molester or will you just say that it was different back then?

Since there is no evidence that "joe"[sic] ever "screwed a 14 year old glrl," there is nothing to "concede."

It is, of course, true that it was considered acceptable for girls to marry younger then, if that's what you mean to imply. "Studies" based upon "median ages" are quite intentionally misleading; if the "median age" of marriage at a given time and place was twenty-four, this only serves to conceal the fact that if one woman married at thirty-six, then someone else had to marry at twelve to make that "median" work.

I always find it fascinating how weak and small the supposed "most true religion on earth" bends at government control. Course, its not that surprising now that i realise its all a farse.

For myself, I find it fascinating how the vaunted "land of the free" so easily jettisoned its principles in order to suppress an unpopular minority religious practice. Perhaps it is America that is the "farse"[sic]; but your nasty gloating is unsurprising, considering how vile is your hatred for The Church of Jesus Christ.

Once again, pa-whore-in is showing his nature, that of someone who makes up the story and reasoning as he goes along.

Actually that is what you are doing, Vague-ass.

Regards,
douchebag

Once again your ability to rationalize is unsurprising. Your response neither confronted the issues raised nor gave us enlightening views. Instead you state that it is me, the US govt, definition of child molestation and the always present denial of fact that is the issue.

Your approach is to redefine the problem so the majority is to blame for a twisted criminal minority. Joseph smith had sex with a fourteen year old girl. Got a daughter? What if your stake president came and told you that you and her would ge ta free ticket to heaven if he got to play hide the sausage with her? Of course, you would just say that it ever happened, pujt your fingers in your ears and start saying "lalalala". I did the same thing when I was in the church defending the indefensible so I can relate EXACTLY to the mental backflips you have been doing.

Do you have any semblance of logic? Do you see David Koresh in the same light as Joseph? HE died for his cause, does that make him a prophet too?

[_Southern Redneck]

Pahoran
For myself, I find it fascinating how the vaunted "land of the free" so easily jettisoned its principles in order to suppress an unpopular minority religious practice. Perhaps it is America that is the "farse"[sic]; but your nasty gloating is unsurprising, considering how vile is your hatred for The Church of Jesus Christ.

If a person exposes a pyramid scheme, would you call them anti-business? anti-free market?

I think most people here have no desire to 'suppress' a minority religion. They simply desire for the members to know ALL sides of the story, not the whitewashed version printed by the church's committees.

I don't see this as a form of suppression.